Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25
and change. the obama administration was going to be that transcendent administration that brought us all together. that is why barack obama earned the white house because he said it was granted a great uniter. remember that beautiful inaugural address and was glorious where he said to conservatives i want to listen to you especially when we disagree. nice, beautiful idea. and he was going to meet with conservatives in congress once a week. the was agreed idea, too. he met twice. so, three days after that beautiful speech, the conservatives in congress came to the white house and they had a meeting and eric cantor, a congressman from virginia articulated the perspective on increasing taxes that we shouldn't do that and you know what obama said three days after? he said i won, you lost. about a week later he said i won the folks that got us into this mess to do a whole lot less talking and a lot more listening. you can talk a little bit but i want you to stay on the sidelines while we try to clean this up for you. unbelievable. gone with any notion of unifying the country of bringing us to
their books. and demagoguery from -- "mugged: racial demagoguery from the seventies to obama" is in sight land timely. i have to say after reading that i felt so unburdened and liberated, i will go ahead and get rid of all of the secret racial words i have been bottling up and here it goes. chicago, constitution, experience, closing the fort, privilege, kitchen cabinets, peanut butter, community organizer, black hole, apartment, share. all racially coded words and now that i am on a roll and this is a friendly crowd of go-ahead and make the most recent statement deemed by the current view out there. here it goes. the most racist comment is i am not voting for president obama. got to get that off my chest. i feel a lot better. don't say that to the person next to you if you feel that way. all joking aside we live in an upside-down world where saying harmless words like that can bear huge tax on the other side and yet the other side can say very toxic comments without repercussions or being held to the same standard. one example is mark lamont hill. you may have seen a recent article, the most o
, "mugged" racial demagoguery from the seventies to obama is incredibly insightful and i encourage everyone the the to read it. personally have to say after reading it i felt so liberated and i'm just going to go ahead and get rid of all of the secret coded racial words and here it goes. chicago, constitution, experience, holding down the fort, professor, and kitchen cabinet in my personal favorite is the mother, peanut butter. also community organizers, black holes, apartments and shares all racially coded words. now that i'm on a roll and i know this is a friendly crowd i'm going to go ahead and say the most recent statement that is deemed to be so by the current view out there. here it goes and if you're sensitive please forgive me because racist comments, i'm not voting for president obama. [applause] i had to get it off my chest. i feel a lot better. all joking aside, we live in an upside down world where saying harmless words like that can bear huge attacks from the other side and yet, the other side can say very toxic comments without any repercussions under the same standard. one ex
left says something, one president. obama says vaccines might cause autism that was ignored. and yes he did say that if we will talk about that later in my top. also there have always been several books published on the topic. there are a couple of other books so if you want to find out how the right is bad at science and there's a big market for that. to our knowledge this is the first book on the anti-scientific left for the so progressives are anti-science as well but let's give the devil -- >> within a month of yours. >> progressives are anti-scientists well. it's just that it's not reported by the media. the media simply looks the other way when their political allies do things that are anti-science. so who are the progressives? what do we mean by progressive? retook david nolan's charter and we kind of relabeled re-relabeled it to take more of our political ideology today. conservatives and libertarians are the easiest to identify. the conservatives are the main train in stream republican party and the libertarians need no introduction, the ron paul institution. the left's howe
% and barack obama guns and religion. >> this morning i just ran 47%. how many media outlets? dozen last one day wore one week or one month? guns was relatively short. three weeks. mitt romney 47% we have not seen the end of it. it is about one month. the stories drop-off but they are drug backend by opponents or events. i am sure coming out of the presidential debate they will wonder if he will respond to that. at issue which gaf we need to pay attention to. represent a character flaw or the incapacity to act? or just normal things? >> if they are hanging out in the public with the internet, youtube distributed more broadly and quickly is the hour cable -- archival capability we can see what barack obama said 1998. were mitt romney by the way not one bit of coverage of 47% in may. there was a fund-raising event but nobody pulled the story in may. not until the video popped up that came back into the process. >> host: what politicians have made mistakes in the past better fatal? >> working backwards, rick perry wants to be the republican nominee he says i will cut them this way but cannot re
biology. however, when someone on the far left does something, when president barack obama says that vaccines might cause autism, that was ignored. and, yes, he did say that. we'll talk about that later in the talk. so, also, there have already been several books published on the topic. chris mooney's one of them, there's a couple other books. so if you want to find out how the right is bad at science, there's already a lot of that. to our knowledge, this is the first book on the anti-scientific left. >> let's give the dell -- devil his due, bob -- [inaudible] wrote a book within months of yours, at the same time. >> oh, okay. and progressives are anti-science as well, it's just it's not reported the media. the media looks the other way when their political allies do things that are anti-science. what do we mean by progressives? well, we took david no lab's chart here -- nolan's chart and relabeled it to fit our political ideology today. conservatives and libertarians are the easiest to identify, libertarians need no introduction, i think. the ron paul revolution, bring us back
new gingrich call barack obama the food stamp president and those of us that heard a dog whistle or racial coding weaver absolutely right but new gingrich was also right when he said i'm not talking about black people, will get all the white people, the percentage of white people is also skyrocketing again. we have independent country. paul ryan was talking about the makers versus the takers, and that was again, saying some people have productive lives and some people live off the rest of us and in a very ayn randian way, very juvenile and untrue. then you have the culmination i think just a week ago in mitt romney talking about the 47%. i don't read anything. i carried the speech it's like a security blanket but i have to read this so i'm sure i get it right. the worst sentence and mitt romney's oration in boca raton with his rich friends was i will never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. that's what he said about 47% americans. he holds half the country in contempt. and so the chickens have kind of come home to work for the wo
with campaign coverage. let's are at the media. mitt romney 47% and barack obama, cling to guns and religion. what was the media coverage like on those two events? >> guest: this morning i just ran the 47% and asked two questions. one is, how much depth as they get? how many media outlets cover the story and was the shelflife? still asked a day, week or month? the guns was relatively sure. maybe a three week. romney 47% we still haven't seen it and obviously, but it's been about a month now. now the stories drop off, but they get dragged back in either by opponents or dragged in by events. i'm sure that as they come to the presidential debate, someone will say i wonder if he's going to respond to that. i wonder if obama will a him a question about that. because the issue is in my mind which of these gaffes are ones we had to pay attention to. do they represent a true character flaw? to be represented in capacity to act the way would like to have them not clark's religious normal things and we'll make mistakes. so a candidate hanging out in the public and now with the internet and youtube and
, national politics, immigration, the presidential campaign of 2004, and 2008, and first lady michele obama and her role in the obama white house. i met rachel at an event this year where i bought a book, the book she wrote, "american tapestry: the story of the black, white, and multiracial ancestors of michelle obama". after hearing her talk, i'd bought six more copies. i bought them for all my family members and to give out as christmas gifts. now after having read her book i can tell you it was a good investment. it helps me better understand my own family and many mysteries surrounding my own family. rachel l. swams's book is a compelling story that stirs deep emotions. it is also a story that would break them here and with that, let's welcome rachel l. swams. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you for coming. in the years leading up to the presidential election, the focus seems to be on barack obama's roots and his family and the fact that he wrote his own biography. now in your book "american tapestry," you put the focus on michele obama. tell us about how you got started do
to president obama which is like mom. the fed is an issue you have to spend the money overseas to secure oil if we turn on the tap that is not necessary then you can downsize. if that is really the line we are the solution. >> we're working on a plan for cars to run on maple syrup. we do continue to build oil pipelines but will run maple syrup threat. if there is this bill that animals will be tasty. [laughter] >> as president is can the plan on importing their health care system to america of? >> we would make a few changes. it is not fair after some much struggle to come down to start a whole new health care plan. immediately we will institute dental care for hockey players. after that with your the veterans administration and we will declare all veterans class warfare eligible for care. [laughter] >> data and a why you have trouble with this. >> are you offering us of the year? or raising your hand? >> didn't you lose all of your strategic maple syrup? >> we do have the maple stands which is a great idea to look at dirt. i can run a car on back. small bits of sap have drained into the soi
president clinton and president obama and how it sits? >> i think none of us know fully with that relationship is in the bill clinton made a very conscious decision that it was to his self-interest and he makes the case for obama's reelection that they couldn't make himself of all of these complicated questions. and number of things that he put on the table of the democratic convention and talks us through or incredible. they're very different people. they are probably the two smartest people in the united states, but i think that bill clinton couldn't make up his mind. he would make a decision and then reverse it. he was up until 3:00 in the morning debating these things. barack obama doesn't work that way. she gets all of these opinions, he hands them out and he has a sense of what his timeframe is to make a decision and then he makes the decision. so, they're very different in their style. that is why the white house was frequently chaotic. >> as sort of a follow-up to your question but to the response if she is a bridge builder again sometimes they do better i won't
% and barack obama cling to guns and religion. what was the media coverage like on that? >> this morning i ran the 47% and i asked questions. one is how much depth they get and how many media outlets covered the story and then what was the shelflife? does at last a day, week or month? the guns was relatively short. we talked about it a lot and rummy of course the 47% we still haven't heard the end of that obviously that in about a month, the stories drop off but they get dragged back and either by opponents or they get dragged in by a fence. i'm sure that as we come out of the presidential debate someone will say well i wonder if you are going to respond to that and i wonder if obama is going to ask a question about that. the issue is in my mind which of these gaffes are ones that we have to pay attention to. do they represent a true character flaw? do they represent an incapacity to ask in a way we would like to have them ask or are they just normal things? we all make mistakes. the candidates have been hanging out there in the public and now with the internet and youtube and things like that
these people at the book festival among others. david maraniss is here with a book about obama. i was curious because all these books are so different in terms of authors's approaches to subject matter, with the subject is dead or alive, what kind of access the biographer has to be subject to. i am curious, do you have a philosophy having written many biographies of what exactly a biography should be and what it should do? >> thanks for the question and for all of you coming out. sunday morning is sometimes a chore. i am gratified so many of you are here. the question of biography and what i see it to be. i am trained as a historian so i tend to look at biographies which, regardless of how they are written to some extent all comprise the life and times of your subject. i tend to include more times than some other biographers do. in my experience and observation, biographers come to their subjects from one of two directions. they are either historians like me or journalists. sometimes novelist's find their way in, but the folks who come from the direction of history, to borrow an image from fi
as a conservative but he double the debt and was a profit -- profligate spender. we were upset with obama making it worse. many people call them sells libertarian to designate as a constitutional conservative. >> host: you wrote this before you had time in the u.s. senate what would you change? has your thinking changed? >> i feel landers stand more how much we're at an impasse getting stuff done. i tried to take ideas that many democrats have put forward but i cannot get democrats to talk to me. i had appointments with several different democratic senators to work on as a security reform. it can be saved 75 years are in perpetuity if we gradually raise the age and mean test the benefits but i cannot get democrats to discuss the possibility. >> host: what about your own party? >> half and half. i meekly critical of my party that all 47 u.s. senators are for a balanced budget amendment. but when we cut $7 million from sugar subsidies we have about 10 republicans that have sugar. if we compare that to the annual deficit is over $1 trillion. you want to cut 7 million added time? that is 140,000 we
in the book, we had some real serious infighting between president obama's own national security team and senior people at the state department over the whole question of, was it wise to try to broach potential piece take the taliban? and we wound up spending 18 months fighting with one another in washington as opposed to uniting in common purpose to try to achieve the president's goal in the country. >> host: who is summer koy. >> guest: she is a young american woman who -- there she is on the bottom right there -- who has extensive foreign development experience and put her hand up to go to a afghanistan to try to rebuild the country to work for the u.s. agency for international development, and the south she'd be out there, able to work with afghanses, trying to pursue projects that would be helpful to the afghan people and support the overall american strategy for trying to stabilize the country. the problem was that when she got out to kabul. she was essentially a prisoner on the giant u.s. embassy compound. she couldn't get authorization to drive out and about, in kabul. was res
was killed. he obviously put a post up that someone interpreted as disagreeing with one of president obama's policies and it started one of these arguments you see going on facebook all the time when someone says that ain't this and they go back and forth in and commenting you say please shut up. and that's sad inspiring, don't fight on my page. i disagree with some political decisions, but he is my commander-in-chief and i support them in all military decisions. to my knowledge, that was the last post my friend matt wrote on facebook. in our last two national elections, we've watched our country registering complete dissatisfaction with the status quo, throwing them out, throwing them out again. .. regenerate that americans trust congress less than any other institution in the u. s, they told our men and women in uniform in the highest confidence. if you read this book about my classmates you begin to understand why. is e-book's title "in the shadow of greatness," because my generation was lucky enough to learn from the example of the generations of veterans who went before us. if we live
. not michelle obama. >> hello. >> nice to meet you. >> my name is logan. >> i'm a writer myself. a few months ago i had an op-ed in the daily caller. >> i just came from there. i love those guys. do you go into that office are you just e-mail a? >> no, i just e-mail it. i'm a writer in my spare time. >> i should've had she sat up and talk and explain the new unemployment numbers. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you're welcome. thank you, robyn. nice to meet you. >> happy fit the fifth anniversary. >> fantastic. one is that? >> today. >> well, then happy anniversary to you, too. >> thank you, dear. >> thank you. >> for more information, visit the author's website, ann >> as part of the tvs university service can we visit campuses across the country and talk with professors who are also authors. this week were at the u.s. naval academy in annapolis, maryland and joining us is professor aaron o'connell, who is the author of this book, "underdogs: the making of the modern marine corps". professor o'connell, when was the marine corps
the illusion that we can somehow recommend to secretary of state clinton or president obama what they should be reading now on current issues. they have people who do that for them. >> host: what did george f. kennan think of the house committee on un-american activities? >> guest: he thought was horrible. george f. kennan thought that mccarthy and mccarthyism was appalling. he was particularly upset because some of his closest friends fell victim to mccarthyism. robert oppenheimer, development of the a-bomb who was head of the institute for that study was one of the victims of mccarthyism. many state department colleagues were fired because of the activities of the senate committee that mccarthy was running and the house on american activities committee. this is what happens when a democracy runs amok and he really had very skeptical views about what democracy was workable and was american democracy workable and he would be the first to say that was a low point in the history of american democracy that period of time. >> host: next call for john lewis gaddis from oregon. you are on booktv o
and working on human trafficking. president obama was at the clinton global initiative announcing a major new direction on the topic, and there are many people who work on this topic who have helped move it forward in the agenda, but she's one of them and really deserves a lot of credit. >> host: talking with philip auerswald. book tv on location at george mason university. >> it was almost two years ago i decided it was time to write a fact based primmer on gay rights, specifically targeted to the right of center voters, hence the subtitle of the book. to do two things. number one, challenge religious right on its own turf and show that much of what they deer risively call the gay agenda is consistent with republican and libertarian voters, and show voters who believe in social tolerance not only are they not a voice in the wilderness, but represent a majority of republican voters. the book has three major things. the first one i just eluded to that many on the right don't understand that properly understood gay rights are, in fact, perfectly compatible with republican principles of limited
in the areas that they don't do well, meaning romney is horrible on civil liberties, and obama is horrible when it comes to dollars and cents. >> as a libertarian now, is it a little tougher to get media attention away from the two-party system, and epsz as the campaign -- especially as the campaign goes on this fall? >> well, speaking for myself, personally, actually, there's been a 30% pick up in attention given, making the switch, so, no, i think just the opposite, that it has picked up, and i'm believing thatñhr when people ce to recognize that there are going to be three candidates on the ballot in all 50 states, me being one of the three, that that's going to go a long way in garnering just a little bit of who is that person along with ron paul's campaign coming to an end, and by his own admission. he says it's coming to an end. i think that ron paul supporters would not be compromising the
infrastructure bank. i don't know if people are aware of it, but it's in the obama budget, senator dodd from connecticut has a bill in the senate to create a national infrastructure bank. felix, the new york city financier who helped new york city out of the desperate financial straights in the 1970s has a book out calling for a national infrastructure bank, and all three of them, and other people, too, cite the erie canal as the first major piece of infrastructure built in the country and the sort of thing we should be doing again, and it's interesting, to me, that these -- there's significant efforts to recreate or to create and to build and rebuild american infrastructure and that the erie canal is cited, but it almost seems as though a lot of this citation of the erie canal is somewhat blind. there aren't really very many similarities on how new york state built the eri canal and how the federal government now supports infrastructure projects. however, there is one very important similarity or how it could inform the debate how the federal government should be creating a national infrast
. it's been personally disappointing to me that when president obama keen into power one of the first things he did was to issue a memo in support of the freedom of information act and he was very strong about this. but it apparently never reached the fbi. [laughter] because to this day the fbi continues to withhold what is public information and this then involves an expensive court fight that tax using taxpayers' dollars. it's very disappointing to me. >> one comment about the past and present. the fact is that if the fbi is focused on any community to do that is implicated but informants and is into the debate instituted programs looking for patterns of behavior as opposed to evidence of crime, the islamic community in the united states and that's not affecting necessarily many of you here in this room. there's work we've done at the investigative reporting program at berkeley and there will be a book called the terror factory, and really it is the story of the fbi manufacturing terrorist conspiracies within the islamic community nationally and which was 98% of their faces, so it's
] >> yes, you have answered your own question. absolutely, president obama has gone on with her as saying that might be the thing that activates a more aggressive western response. my fear like president quayle said during the crisis, he said something similar. some people suggest why some -- saddam held back on the chemical weapons triggering a more violent response. as was mentioned earlier, i write about this machiavellian calibration. from the very beginning i think the assad regime, they did not want the 1982 massacre. that would galvanize the international community and in fact they know, the international community does not want to go into. they know the united states doesn't want to go into it and for good reason by the way. we don't understand the landscape and the opposition is fragmented and divided. before we went in a bit wind we have supported the opposition groups in afghanistan in the 1980s because of the soviet occupation and what happened with the taliban that came back to vita bite us so we have to understand certainly anything like that. and it's just a different situa
obama to head the jobs council of the white house. he pays no federal income tax for his company. he pays more federal income tax than his giant corporation in dollars, and his income is larger, of course, than the income tax that his giant corporation pays which is zero. the equity here goes to closing down tax havens, getting international tax compacts. there are countries that would like to do it, but if they don't want to do it if no one else does it. it involves getting rid of what are called loopholes, tax shelters for the wealthy. if we restore the tax system for corporations and the wealthy that we had in the 1960s which were quite prosperous by conventional yardsticks, it would be another $2-$300 billion. so we're not talking about a tax increase, we should be talking about a tax restoration. the third principle of transforming our tax system is to simplify it. this will unemploy some bookkeepers, accountants and tax lawyers, but we need to simplify it so we can collect more of it. right now $300 billion in taxes escapes -- in income escapes taxation according to the u.s. tr
of 2004 and 2008 and on first lady michelle obama and her role in the obama white house. i met rachel at different events this year where i got a book that she wrote, "american tapestry" the story of the black, white and multiracial ancestors of michelle obama. after hearing her talk, i bought six more copies. i bought them for all of my family members and to give out as christmas gifts. now after having read her book i can tell you is a good investment. it helped me better understand my own family's roots and many mysteries surrounding my own family. rachel swarns's lucas a compelling story that at times has deep emotion but it's also a story about liberating -- and with that, let's welcome rachel swarns. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> rachel, thank you for coming. in the years leading up to the presidential election the focus seemed to be on barack obama's roots and his family and the fact that he wrote his own biography. but, now in your book, "american tapestry," you put the focus on michelle obama. tell us about how you got started doing that and what inspired you. >> i w
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25